Posted on 03/20/2008 7:11:35 AM PDT by jdm
Representative Ron Paul, Republican nominee for Congress in Texas district 14, believes there is a 'New Right' conspiracy against him in the GOP.
Despite the fact that he shifted effort from his Presidential campaign to ensure he beat the mainstream Republican, Chris Peden, in the Texas 14 primary, and that he still has neither endorsed John McCain for President nor even acknowledged that he needs to work with McCain to ensure Republican victory in November, Paul thinks the burden is on the party to come to him.
Read on...
Says the Washington Times:
The Texas congressman says neither he nor his supporters have heard from Mr. McCain or Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan since March 4, when the Arizona senator accumulated enough delegates to clinch the party's presidential nomination.
"I don't think they want them," Mr. Paul told The Washington Times, adding that indifference doesn't surprise him because the party's establishment has deserted traditional conservative principles for big government and foreign intervention.
"We don't agree with them," he says. "We agree with the Old Right, and they're the New Right, which is 'The Wrong,' [because] the New Right has morphed into neoconservative."
Look, Congressman, it's very simple: You have sold yourself as a Republican to the voters in your home district. They believed it, but the rest of us are not bound to do the same. After all your outlandish rhetoric this campaign season, the burden is on you to prove that you are back in the fold by endorsing John McCain for President. Just take that one step, and that will prove we can work with you.
Had you won the Republican nomination, surely anyone who failed to back you would have been relegated to Republican in Name Only status, and been held up for mockery and attack. The time has come for you to hold up your end of the deal and avoid that fate. Nobody will ask you to campaign for Senator McCain, though it would be nice of you to do some outreach to your supporters. Just ask your supporters to vote for him, though, in one simple, unambiguous statement. I have no connections inside the national GOP, but I have to believe that is all anyone wants.
“...Ron Paul is a liberal as John Murtha.”
I’m with xzins. Make your case. I don’t think that you can do it.
I don’t agree with Paul on a few things — the war being the biggest one — but he is not a liberal.
I know a way to get term limits WITHOUT doing “constitutionally questionable” things.
Support a law that progressively invests in congressional pay/pensions/benefits up to the 12 year mark and then progressively disinvests in them for each term afterwards.
2 years = 16%
4 years = 32%%
6 years = 48%
12 years = 100%
14 years = 84%
16 years = 68%
18 years = 50%
20 years = 25%
24 years = 0%
They are free to stay, but they lose pay and benefits once they pass the 12 year mark.
Career politicians are not an indispensable commodity.
but he is a liberal on the war
I like that idea
Fix the pay of elected officials to precisely the median income of their jurisdiction (i.e. all federal elected officials get the US income median as their compensation). Term limits and corrective behavior incentives all in one package.
That video sucks as much now as when you first posted it.
If you supported the war with iraq because you thought saddam had to be taken out because he was a threat to the US, you may not necessarily be a neo-con.
If you supported the war because you want to turn iraq into a democracy or because you thought Saddam deserved it because he oppressed his own people, then you are a neo-con.
Your above post is mostly correct but you leave out that neo-con foreign policy is liberal foreign policy - nation-building, world policing, etc. So, it's amazing your next post calls Ron Paul 'liberal' on the war.
It's you who's liberal on the war, by your own admission of being a neo-con. The goal-posts have been moved, cleverly, and conservatism redefined by globalist, New World Order types.
If you supported the war because you want to turn iraq into a democracy or because you thought Saddam deserved it because he oppressed his own people, then you are a neo-con.
How many other dictators oppress their own people? How many countries aren't democracies? Do you propose invading each, or just 1 every 5-10 years?
LOL!
Want to see an ignorant soul - look in the mirror!
I don't have to “agree” with Bush to NOT be a Ron Paul supporter - this kind of “logic” is typical of the irrational and loony Ron Paul supporters. I'm so glad the idiot LOST. He is a loser and always will be. It doesn't matter how many times he runs - he has NO influence and NO impact on anything because he is a lunatic.
It’s an interesting thread to have this discussion in, considering that the neo-cons are the ones who decided the “Big Tent” had room for global warming chicken littles and big government socialists and anti-freedom crusaders, but no room for small-government libertarians and paleocons (traditional conservatives).
Ron Paul is another neo-con.
The “big tent” is what destroyed the GOP and people like Ron Paul make also destroy the GOP with their loony political rhetoric. Ron Paul turns the GOP into a joke. Ron Paul needs a softly padded rubber room to help him recuperate.
You’re out of your mind.
“You’re out of your mind.”
Thank you!
From a Ron Paul supporter, I take that as a COMPLIMENT!
I am NO Ron Paul supporter!
Not bad, but it would drive out just about everybody but Ron Paul.
Paul has refused to participate in the Congressional pension system, and he's returned $75,000 from his office budget from last year.
How'd your congresscritter do?
Out of thousands of freepers, I can honestly say that you're probably the only one to think this. Congratulations.
it is liberal to blame America for 9/11 and run out of Iraq even if it means that al qaeda takes over and uses it as a base for terrorist operations.
A liberal tries to ‘understand’ al qaeda. Let’s get real: muslims are for a caliphate, universal sharia law and dhimmitude whether or not we are in Saudi Arabia or not. It’s part of their religion.
That’s something neither Bush nor Ron paul understands. Islam is not a religion of peace and they will fight us no matter what we do.
You might do well to look up the definition of a Neo-con.
BTW: I'm curious; just exactly WHY do you hate Ron Paul?
Are you a banker or a politician?
Perhaps you are an abortionist, or a liberal gun-grabber?
Oh, wait, I've got it; you stand to gain a fortune in the upcoming new world order.
Come on, tell us your stake in this.
Only if you define conservatism as American military imperialism.
nmh is definitey uninformed.
I think reagan defines modern conservatism.
Ron Paul is a LIBERALtarian.
He lost as expected.
What is there to discuss about this idiot?
“The people have spoken. They don't want Ron Paul.”
Ron Paul is your typical self centered LIBERAL.
He fits in well with the Demoncrats
against the war
legalizing illegal drugs - which I believe he is overdosing on .... symPATHETIC to homos etc..
Only IDIOTS would want him for anything.
Happy to see he is irrelevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.